Eight years ago, Virginians voted to constitutionally define marriage between a man and a woman. Thursday, Wright Allen ruled the ban violated the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment.

Townley and Schall were added as plaintiffs to the case. The two were married in California in 2008, but their marriage was not recognized in the Commonwealth. Their claim centered around Schall's wish to adopt Townley's birth daughter, which she was unable to do under Commonwealth law. Court documents say the two women tried to renew their daughter's passport at a US Postal Office in Virginia, and were denied.

"You're nobody, you don't matter," the two were told by a clerk, according to court documents.

Court documents go on to describe Virginia marriage benefits the couple was unable to attain.

"The legal process will continue to play out in the months to come, but this decision shows that Virginia, like America, is coming to a better place in recognizing that every Virginian deserves to be treated equally and fairly,'' Herring, a Democrat, said in a statement.

In her ruling, Wright Allen cited freedoms guaranteed to all Americans and protected by the Constitution.

"Justice has often been forged from fires of indignities and prejudices suffered. Our triumphs that celebrate the freedom of choice are hallowed. We have arrived upon another moment in history when We the People becomes more inclusive, and our freedom more perfect," she wrote.

Wright Allen went on to explain personal liberties should not be cherry-picked on a case-by-case basis.

"Government interests in perpetuating traditions, shielding state matters from federal interference, and favoring one model of parenting over others must yield to this country's cherished protections that ensure the exercise of the private choices of the individual citizen regarding love and family," she wrote.

The decision comes the day after a similar ruling in Kentucky and following similar rulings in federal courts in Utah and Oklahoma.

"It appears that we have yet another example of an arrogant judge substituting her personal preferences for the judgment of the General Assembly and 57 percent of Virginia voters,'' said Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council. "Our nation's judicial system has been infected by activist judges, which threaten the stability of our nation and the rule of law.''

Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, called the ruling ``another example of an Obama-appointed judge twisting the constitution and the rule of law to impose her own views of marriage in defiance of the people of Virginia.''

Opponents of the Virginia ban say the issue resonates in Virginia in particular because of a landmark 1967 U.S. Supreme Court decision involving a Virginia couple and interracial marriage.

Mildred and Richard Loving were married in Washington, D.C., and lived in Virginia when police raided their home in 1958 and charged them with violating the state's Racial Integrity law. They were convicted but prevailed before the Supreme Court.

During verbal arguments in the gay marriage case, Virginia Solicitor General Stuart Raphael said that ban is legally indistinguishable from the one on interracial marriage. He said the arguments used to defend the ban now are the same ones used back then, including that marriage between two people of the same sex has never been historically allowed. Wright Allen concurred with that assessment in her ruling.

"Tradition is revered in the Commonwealth, and often rightly so. However, tradition alone cannot justify denying same-sex couples the right to marry any more than it could justify Virginia's ban on interracial marriage,'' she wrote.

Raphael also said supporters have failed to prove how allowing gay marriage would make heterosexual couples less likely to marry.

Nationwide, there are more than a dozen states with federal lawsuits challenging state bans on same-sex marriage.